What are the balance implications of allowing Forge Clerics to gradually create items worth over 100gp with...












21












$begingroup$


I am currently DM'ing a campaign, in which one of the PCs is a Forge Cleric.



Artisan's Blessing lets Forge Clerics conduct a ritual to craft non-magical items worth no more than 100gp. Raw materials of equivalent value must be provided in order to craft the item.



A suit of armour is on the list of example items that a Forge Cleric could create using this power. However, there are some suits of Armour (in the medium and heavy armour categories) that are worth more than 100gp. RAW would suggest that a Forge Cleric is unable to craft these items.



My Forge Cleric player asked me if he could get around this limitation by crafting a more expensive suit of armour over multiple uses of Artisan's Blessing. For example he reasoned he could create a suit of Splint armour (worth 200gp) over two uses of Artisan's Blessing, making half at a time.



Now, as I have said, I am pretty convinced that RAW this is not allowed (though I'm open to being convinced otherwise) but what would be the balance implications of allowing this in my game?



The PC would still need to provide sufficient raw materials to make the suit of armour, and the process would become significantly more time consuming. It's also still only providing him with an item which in many campaigns could be easily purchased from any nearby shop. It therefore doesn't seem unreasonable to allow my player to break RAW and craft more expensive items, piece by piece.



Have I missed something, or should this be OK game balance wise?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    21












    $begingroup$


    I am currently DM'ing a campaign, in which one of the PCs is a Forge Cleric.



    Artisan's Blessing lets Forge Clerics conduct a ritual to craft non-magical items worth no more than 100gp. Raw materials of equivalent value must be provided in order to craft the item.



    A suit of armour is on the list of example items that a Forge Cleric could create using this power. However, there are some suits of Armour (in the medium and heavy armour categories) that are worth more than 100gp. RAW would suggest that a Forge Cleric is unable to craft these items.



    My Forge Cleric player asked me if he could get around this limitation by crafting a more expensive suit of armour over multiple uses of Artisan's Blessing. For example he reasoned he could create a suit of Splint armour (worth 200gp) over two uses of Artisan's Blessing, making half at a time.



    Now, as I have said, I am pretty convinced that RAW this is not allowed (though I'm open to being convinced otherwise) but what would be the balance implications of allowing this in my game?



    The PC would still need to provide sufficient raw materials to make the suit of armour, and the process would become significantly more time consuming. It's also still only providing him with an item which in many campaigns could be easily purchased from any nearby shop. It therefore doesn't seem unreasonable to allow my player to break RAW and craft more expensive items, piece by piece.



    Have I missed something, or should this be OK game balance wise?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      21












      21








      21


      1



      $begingroup$


      I am currently DM'ing a campaign, in which one of the PCs is a Forge Cleric.



      Artisan's Blessing lets Forge Clerics conduct a ritual to craft non-magical items worth no more than 100gp. Raw materials of equivalent value must be provided in order to craft the item.



      A suit of armour is on the list of example items that a Forge Cleric could create using this power. However, there are some suits of Armour (in the medium and heavy armour categories) that are worth more than 100gp. RAW would suggest that a Forge Cleric is unable to craft these items.



      My Forge Cleric player asked me if he could get around this limitation by crafting a more expensive suit of armour over multiple uses of Artisan's Blessing. For example he reasoned he could create a suit of Splint armour (worth 200gp) over two uses of Artisan's Blessing, making half at a time.



      Now, as I have said, I am pretty convinced that RAW this is not allowed (though I'm open to being convinced otherwise) but what would be the balance implications of allowing this in my game?



      The PC would still need to provide sufficient raw materials to make the suit of armour, and the process would become significantly more time consuming. It's also still only providing him with an item which in many campaigns could be easily purchased from any nearby shop. It therefore doesn't seem unreasonable to allow my player to break RAW and craft more expensive items, piece by piece.



      Have I missed something, or should this be OK game balance wise?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I am currently DM'ing a campaign, in which one of the PCs is a Forge Cleric.



      Artisan's Blessing lets Forge Clerics conduct a ritual to craft non-magical items worth no more than 100gp. Raw materials of equivalent value must be provided in order to craft the item.



      A suit of armour is on the list of example items that a Forge Cleric could create using this power. However, there are some suits of Armour (in the medium and heavy armour categories) that are worth more than 100gp. RAW would suggest that a Forge Cleric is unable to craft these items.



      My Forge Cleric player asked me if he could get around this limitation by crafting a more expensive suit of armour over multiple uses of Artisan's Blessing. For example he reasoned he could create a suit of Splint armour (worth 200gp) over two uses of Artisan's Blessing, making half at a time.



      Now, as I have said, I am pretty convinced that RAW this is not allowed (though I'm open to being convinced otherwise) but what would be the balance implications of allowing this in my game?



      The PC would still need to provide sufficient raw materials to make the suit of armour, and the process would become significantly more time consuming. It's also still only providing him with an item which in many campaigns could be easily purchased from any nearby shop. It therefore doesn't seem unreasonable to allow my player to break RAW and craft more expensive items, piece by piece.



      Have I missed something, or should this be OK game balance wise?







      dnd-5e class-feature balance house-rules cleric






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Feb 16 at 2:04









      V2Blast

      25k383155




      25k383155










      asked Feb 15 at 11:35









      TiggerousTiggerous

      10.3k44583




      10.3k44583






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          21












          $begingroup$

          I don't see why not.



          If you can craft an object, you certainly can craft an incomplete object. Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain. You can certainly craft half that chain at a point, then another half at another. As a DM, you can adjudicate that joining both halfs requires either another use, or specialized work, but I would just allow the Cleric to join both. He is taking the time and resources to craft these things, day by day, just like you would with Downtime Rules.



          It is creative, and as far as I can tell, won't break anything.



          In your specific case, as as a real life example, consider the Plate Armor (1800g), made out of many parts. The Cleric should be able to craft one of these with every use/pair of uses. After all of them are complete, you have the plate armor, which together is valued at 1800g.



          That being said, you can also consider that if the object being crafted is a single piece that is valued over 100g, then since you cannot craft it by parts, then you cannot use Artisan's Blessing with it.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            It might be worth noting that certain items may consist either in part or as a whole of pieces that are worth more than the 100gp limit; i.e. a breastplate costs 400gp and cannot easily be divided to go below the limit.
            $endgroup$
            – Rogem
            Feb 15 at 14:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a bit more detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:40












          • $begingroup$
            “Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain.” I’d consider the >100gp value an indication of the skill required and less about the amount of work. I’d interpret the rules to mean that a Forge Cleric simply lacks the required skill to produce such items.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael
            Feb 16 at 10:36



















          8












          $begingroup$

          Would it affect your game much? Probably not, as long as you'd technically allow them to purchase the item from a vendor.



          As you mentioned, the cleric will have to provide raw materials worth the value of the final item. This basically means that it's the same as buying it from a shop, with the deciding factor being availability. As such, the only scenario I can see where it might affect (your intended) balance is when you intended for a certain item to not exist in your world.



          As long as the cleric knows the recipe, which they likely got hammered into them since they chose their domain, and is willing to spend his limited uses per day over multiple days to create the item, I see no major balance issue, even if you allow them to use the ability to fuse all parts together into the complete item (about that, see below).





          You likely can create the parts, but not the item.



          From the effect of Artisan's Blessing (emphasis mine):




          As part of this ritual, you must lay out metal, which can include coins, with a value equal to the creation. The metal irretrievably coalesces and transforms into the creation at the ritual’s end, magically forming even nonmetal parts of the creation.




          Basically, you magically (and completely) melt down the raw materials and reshape and transform them into the desired form. As GM, I would not forbid you from using this ability to create parts of an item, as long as each part is worth less than 100G.



          However, you cannot use Artisan's Blessing to then combine the parts into a single item worth more than 100G (since this essentially means magically melting down and reshaping the parts you had made just before. The ability doesn't care what the metal used for the ritual looks like). As such, as a GM I would require you to use conventional means/tools and appropriate skill checks to put together the parts you made with Artisan's Blessing.



          TL;DR: Artisan's Blessing for Parts, conventional crafting to put them together.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:42










          • $begingroup$
            @Rubiksmoose As a few days have now passed, if you wanted to submit your own answer, including comparison to the crafting rules, then I'd be interested to read it.
            $endgroup$
            – Tiggerous
            Feb 18 at 15:28













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "122"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141182%2fwhat-are-the-balance-implications-of-allowing-forge-clerics-to-gradually-create%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          21












          $begingroup$

          I don't see why not.



          If you can craft an object, you certainly can craft an incomplete object. Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain. You can certainly craft half that chain at a point, then another half at another. As a DM, you can adjudicate that joining both halfs requires either another use, or specialized work, but I would just allow the Cleric to join both. He is taking the time and resources to craft these things, day by day, just like you would with Downtime Rules.



          It is creative, and as far as I can tell, won't break anything.



          In your specific case, as as a real life example, consider the Plate Armor (1800g), made out of many parts. The Cleric should be able to craft one of these with every use/pair of uses. After all of them are complete, you have the plate armor, which together is valued at 1800g.



          That being said, you can also consider that if the object being crafted is a single piece that is valued over 100g, then since you cannot craft it by parts, then you cannot use Artisan's Blessing with it.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            It might be worth noting that certain items may consist either in part or as a whole of pieces that are worth more than the 100gp limit; i.e. a breastplate costs 400gp and cannot easily be divided to go below the limit.
            $endgroup$
            – Rogem
            Feb 15 at 14:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a bit more detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:40












          • $begingroup$
            “Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain.” I’d consider the >100gp value an indication of the skill required and less about the amount of work. I’d interpret the rules to mean that a Forge Cleric simply lacks the required skill to produce such items.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael
            Feb 16 at 10:36
















          21












          $begingroup$

          I don't see why not.



          If you can craft an object, you certainly can craft an incomplete object. Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain. You can certainly craft half that chain at a point, then another half at another. As a DM, you can adjudicate that joining both halfs requires either another use, or specialized work, but I would just allow the Cleric to join both. He is taking the time and resources to craft these things, day by day, just like you would with Downtime Rules.



          It is creative, and as far as I can tell, won't break anything.



          In your specific case, as as a real life example, consider the Plate Armor (1800g), made out of many parts. The Cleric should be able to craft one of these with every use/pair of uses. After all of them are complete, you have the plate armor, which together is valued at 1800g.



          That being said, you can also consider that if the object being crafted is a single piece that is valued over 100g, then since you cannot craft it by parts, then you cannot use Artisan's Blessing with it.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            It might be worth noting that certain items may consist either in part or as a whole of pieces that are worth more than the 100gp limit; i.e. a breastplate costs 400gp and cannot easily be divided to go below the limit.
            $endgroup$
            – Rogem
            Feb 15 at 14:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a bit more detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:40












          • $begingroup$
            “Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain.” I’d consider the >100gp value an indication of the skill required and less about the amount of work. I’d interpret the rules to mean that a Forge Cleric simply lacks the required skill to produce such items.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael
            Feb 16 at 10:36














          21












          21








          21





          $begingroup$

          I don't see why not.



          If you can craft an object, you certainly can craft an incomplete object. Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain. You can certainly craft half that chain at a point, then another half at another. As a DM, you can adjudicate that joining both halfs requires either another use, or specialized work, but I would just allow the Cleric to join both. He is taking the time and resources to craft these things, day by day, just like you would with Downtime Rules.



          It is creative, and as far as I can tell, won't break anything.



          In your specific case, as as a real life example, consider the Plate Armor (1800g), made out of many parts. The Cleric should be able to craft one of these with every use/pair of uses. After all of them are complete, you have the plate armor, which together is valued at 1800g.



          That being said, you can also consider that if the object being crafted is a single piece that is valued over 100g, then since you cannot craft it by parts, then you cannot use Artisan's Blessing with it.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          I don't see why not.



          If you can craft an object, you certainly can craft an incomplete object. Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain. You can certainly craft half that chain at a point, then another half at another. As a DM, you can adjudicate that joining both halfs requires either another use, or specialized work, but I would just allow the Cleric to join both. He is taking the time and resources to craft these things, day by day, just like you would with Downtime Rules.



          It is creative, and as far as I can tell, won't break anything.



          In your specific case, as as a real life example, consider the Plate Armor (1800g), made out of many parts. The Cleric should be able to craft one of these with every use/pair of uses. After all of them are complete, you have the plate armor, which together is valued at 1800g.



          That being said, you can also consider that if the object being crafted is a single piece that is valued over 100g, then since you cannot craft it by parts, then you cannot use Artisan's Blessing with it.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Feb 15 at 15:59

























          answered Feb 15 at 11:53









          BlueMoon93BlueMoon93

          14.9k1183149




          14.9k1183149








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            It might be worth noting that certain items may consist either in part or as a whole of pieces that are worth more than the 100gp limit; i.e. a breastplate costs 400gp and cannot easily be divided to go below the limit.
            $endgroup$
            – Rogem
            Feb 15 at 14:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a bit more detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:40












          • $begingroup$
            “Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain.” I’d consider the >100gp value an indication of the skill required and less about the amount of work. I’d interpret the rules to mean that a Forge Cleric simply lacks the required skill to produce such items.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael
            Feb 16 at 10:36














          • 2




            $begingroup$
            It might be worth noting that certain items may consist either in part or as a whole of pieces that are worth more than the 100gp limit; i.e. a breastplate costs 400gp and cannot easily be divided to go below the limit.
            $endgroup$
            – Rogem
            Feb 15 at 14:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a bit more detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:40












          • $begingroup$
            “Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain.” I’d consider the >100gp value an indication of the skill required and less about the amount of work. I’d interpret the rules to mean that a Forge Cleric simply lacks the required skill to produce such items.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael
            Feb 16 at 10:36








          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          It might be worth noting that certain items may consist either in part or as a whole of pieces that are worth more than the 100gp limit; i.e. a breastplate costs 400gp and cannot easily be divided to go below the limit.
          $endgroup$
          – Rogem
          Feb 15 at 14:21




          $begingroup$
          It might be worth noting that certain items may consist either in part or as a whole of pieces that are worth more than the 100gp limit; i.e. a breastplate costs 400gp and cannot easily be divided to go below the limit.
          $endgroup$
          – Rogem
          Feb 15 at 14:21




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I think potentially a bit more detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
          $endgroup$
          – Rubiksmoose
          Feb 15 at 14:40






          $begingroup$
          I think potentially a bit more detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
          $endgroup$
          – Rubiksmoose
          Feb 15 at 14:40














          $begingroup$
          “Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain.” I’d consider the >100gp value an indication of the skill required and less about the amount of work. I’d interpret the rules to mean that a Forge Cleric simply lacks the required skill to produce such items.
          $endgroup$
          – Michael
          Feb 16 at 10:36




          $begingroup$
          “Say you want to make a necklace, with a very intricate chain.” I’d consider the >100gp value an indication of the skill required and less about the amount of work. I’d interpret the rules to mean that a Forge Cleric simply lacks the required skill to produce such items.
          $endgroup$
          – Michael
          Feb 16 at 10:36













          8












          $begingroup$

          Would it affect your game much? Probably not, as long as you'd technically allow them to purchase the item from a vendor.



          As you mentioned, the cleric will have to provide raw materials worth the value of the final item. This basically means that it's the same as buying it from a shop, with the deciding factor being availability. As such, the only scenario I can see where it might affect (your intended) balance is when you intended for a certain item to not exist in your world.



          As long as the cleric knows the recipe, which they likely got hammered into them since they chose their domain, and is willing to spend his limited uses per day over multiple days to create the item, I see no major balance issue, even if you allow them to use the ability to fuse all parts together into the complete item (about that, see below).





          You likely can create the parts, but not the item.



          From the effect of Artisan's Blessing (emphasis mine):




          As part of this ritual, you must lay out metal, which can include coins, with a value equal to the creation. The metal irretrievably coalesces and transforms into the creation at the ritual’s end, magically forming even nonmetal parts of the creation.




          Basically, you magically (and completely) melt down the raw materials and reshape and transform them into the desired form. As GM, I would not forbid you from using this ability to create parts of an item, as long as each part is worth less than 100G.



          However, you cannot use Artisan's Blessing to then combine the parts into a single item worth more than 100G (since this essentially means magically melting down and reshaping the parts you had made just before. The ability doesn't care what the metal used for the ritual looks like). As such, as a GM I would require you to use conventional means/tools and appropriate skill checks to put together the parts you made with Artisan's Blessing.



          TL;DR: Artisan's Blessing for Parts, conventional crafting to put them together.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:42










          • $begingroup$
            @Rubiksmoose As a few days have now passed, if you wanted to submit your own answer, including comparison to the crafting rules, then I'd be interested to read it.
            $endgroup$
            – Tiggerous
            Feb 18 at 15:28


















          8












          $begingroup$

          Would it affect your game much? Probably not, as long as you'd technically allow them to purchase the item from a vendor.



          As you mentioned, the cleric will have to provide raw materials worth the value of the final item. This basically means that it's the same as buying it from a shop, with the deciding factor being availability. As such, the only scenario I can see where it might affect (your intended) balance is when you intended for a certain item to not exist in your world.



          As long as the cleric knows the recipe, which they likely got hammered into them since they chose their domain, and is willing to spend his limited uses per day over multiple days to create the item, I see no major balance issue, even if you allow them to use the ability to fuse all parts together into the complete item (about that, see below).





          You likely can create the parts, but not the item.



          From the effect of Artisan's Blessing (emphasis mine):




          As part of this ritual, you must lay out metal, which can include coins, with a value equal to the creation. The metal irretrievably coalesces and transforms into the creation at the ritual’s end, magically forming even nonmetal parts of the creation.




          Basically, you magically (and completely) melt down the raw materials and reshape and transform them into the desired form. As GM, I would not forbid you from using this ability to create parts of an item, as long as each part is worth less than 100G.



          However, you cannot use Artisan's Blessing to then combine the parts into a single item worth more than 100G (since this essentially means magically melting down and reshaping the parts you had made just before. The ability doesn't care what the metal used for the ritual looks like). As such, as a GM I would require you to use conventional means/tools and appropriate skill checks to put together the parts you made with Artisan's Blessing.



          TL;DR: Artisan's Blessing for Parts, conventional crafting to put them together.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:42










          • $begingroup$
            @Rubiksmoose As a few days have now passed, if you wanted to submit your own answer, including comparison to the crafting rules, then I'd be interested to read it.
            $endgroup$
            – Tiggerous
            Feb 18 at 15:28
















          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          Would it affect your game much? Probably not, as long as you'd technically allow them to purchase the item from a vendor.



          As you mentioned, the cleric will have to provide raw materials worth the value of the final item. This basically means that it's the same as buying it from a shop, with the deciding factor being availability. As such, the only scenario I can see where it might affect (your intended) balance is when you intended for a certain item to not exist in your world.



          As long as the cleric knows the recipe, which they likely got hammered into them since they chose their domain, and is willing to spend his limited uses per day over multiple days to create the item, I see no major balance issue, even if you allow them to use the ability to fuse all parts together into the complete item (about that, see below).





          You likely can create the parts, but not the item.



          From the effect of Artisan's Blessing (emphasis mine):




          As part of this ritual, you must lay out metal, which can include coins, with a value equal to the creation. The metal irretrievably coalesces and transforms into the creation at the ritual’s end, magically forming even nonmetal parts of the creation.




          Basically, you magically (and completely) melt down the raw materials and reshape and transform them into the desired form. As GM, I would not forbid you from using this ability to create parts of an item, as long as each part is worth less than 100G.



          However, you cannot use Artisan's Blessing to then combine the parts into a single item worth more than 100G (since this essentially means magically melting down and reshaping the parts you had made just before. The ability doesn't care what the metal used for the ritual looks like). As such, as a GM I would require you to use conventional means/tools and appropriate skill checks to put together the parts you made with Artisan's Blessing.



          TL;DR: Artisan's Blessing for Parts, conventional crafting to put them together.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Would it affect your game much? Probably not, as long as you'd technically allow them to purchase the item from a vendor.



          As you mentioned, the cleric will have to provide raw materials worth the value of the final item. This basically means that it's the same as buying it from a shop, with the deciding factor being availability. As such, the only scenario I can see where it might affect (your intended) balance is when you intended for a certain item to not exist in your world.



          As long as the cleric knows the recipe, which they likely got hammered into them since they chose their domain, and is willing to spend his limited uses per day over multiple days to create the item, I see no major balance issue, even if you allow them to use the ability to fuse all parts together into the complete item (about that, see below).





          You likely can create the parts, but not the item.



          From the effect of Artisan's Blessing (emphasis mine):




          As part of this ritual, you must lay out metal, which can include coins, with a value equal to the creation. The metal irretrievably coalesces and transforms into the creation at the ritual’s end, magically forming even nonmetal parts of the creation.




          Basically, you magically (and completely) melt down the raw materials and reshape and transform them into the desired form. As GM, I would not forbid you from using this ability to create parts of an item, as long as each part is worth less than 100G.



          However, you cannot use Artisan's Blessing to then combine the parts into a single item worth more than 100G (since this essentially means magically melting down and reshaping the parts you had made just before. The ability doesn't care what the metal used for the ritual looks like). As such, as a GM I would require you to use conventional means/tools and appropriate skill checks to put together the parts you made with Artisan's Blessing.



          TL;DR: Artisan's Blessing for Parts, conventional crafting to put them together.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Feb 15 at 14:20

























          answered Feb 15 at 13:57









          SuthekSuthek

          603210




          603210








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:42










          • $begingroup$
            @Rubiksmoose As a few days have now passed, if you wanted to submit your own answer, including comparison to the crafting rules, then I'd be interested to read it.
            $endgroup$
            – Tiggerous
            Feb 18 at 15:28
















          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I think potentially a detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            Feb 15 at 14:42










          • $begingroup$
            @Rubiksmoose As a few days have now passed, if you wanted to submit your own answer, including comparison to the crafting rules, then I'd be interested to read it.
            $endgroup$
            – Tiggerous
            Feb 18 at 15:28










          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          I think potentially a detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
          $endgroup$
          – Rubiksmoose
          Feb 15 at 14:42




          $begingroup$
          I think potentially a detailed comparison to the crafting rules might be good here. For example, does this method allow a player to "craft" an item faster/cheaper/with fewer requirements than the crafting rules would otherwise allow? For a DM following the crafting rules, that would likely be an important factor to consider in balance.
          $endgroup$
          – Rubiksmoose
          Feb 15 at 14:42












          $begingroup$
          @Rubiksmoose As a few days have now passed, if you wanted to submit your own answer, including comparison to the crafting rules, then I'd be interested to read it.
          $endgroup$
          – Tiggerous
          Feb 18 at 15:28






          $begingroup$
          @Rubiksmoose As a few days have now passed, if you wanted to submit your own answer, including comparison to the crafting rules, then I'd be interested to read it.
          $endgroup$
          – Tiggerous
          Feb 18 at 15:28




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141182%2fwhat-are-the-balance-implications-of-allowing-forge-clerics-to-gradually-create%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

          When does type information flow backwards in C++?

          Grease: Live!